Barry Soetoro had a Great Fall...

Barry Soetoro had a Great Fall...
(--with 2020 Addendum)

Do you remember where you were 10 years ago? Do you remember who was president? Who was governor? More to the point, had you ever heard of Barry Soetoro, or should I say Barack Obama? Technically, maybe you had. 10 years ago, Mr. Obama had just been sworn in as a Senator and had been the Keynote speaker at the DNC convention the previous November, but you get my point. Bush had been a Governor for 6 years be becoming President, Clinton for 10 years, Bush Sr. had been a been a Vice-President for 8 years, Reagan had been Governor for 8 years, Carter had been for 4 years, Ford had been Nixon's Vice-President and Nixon and been in politics at the nation level for a very long time before gaining the highest office in the land. I can go back further, but the world becomes less and less recognizable through the lens of mass media and each instance of a person's rise to President becomes less similar than a rise is today. So my point is that Mr. Obama has had a meteoric rise to become President of the United States.

Let me take a moment to stress that meteoric rise. In 2005, Mr. Obama was sworn in as a Senator from Illinois and just 4 years later he was being sworn in as President, having not even served a complete term as a US Senator. He catapulted from being a State Senator—one of about 2400 nation-wide—to being a US Senator, and then quickly catapulted further to become the United States President. Now, making the jump from State Senator to US Senator is not that unusual. And the jump from Senator to President has happened before, Nixon and Kennedy are examples of that. But to jump from State Senator to US Senator and then right on to the Presidency, without pause? That is unheard of. Everyone who advances up the ranks in leadership has a pause while he or she learns how to handle the new roles and responsibilities and then build a track-record to demonstrate that he or she is ready for the next step. But not Mr. Obama. So I assert that Mr. Obama's rise, is a rise most unusual.

'But', some may argue, 'If a person is of extraordinary ability, then he will have an extraordinary rise'. That is true, look at the meteoric rise in the business world of Mr. Zuckerburg. He built Facebook into a platform that others could use and has virtually defined Social Media, he was in the right place, at the right time, with the right ambition and the right skills—much like Mr. Gates and Mr. Jobs (read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers for more on them). But is Mr. Obama one of these 'extraordinary' people? Was he in the right place at the right time, with the right ambition and the right skills? I expect that depends on that you mean by 'right'. Clearly, he did get elected, so he must have been at the right time and place. Also, it is just as clear that he had the right ambition, or at least that he had the ambition to go after what he wanted—whatever that was. But did he have the 'right' skills? Again, since he did get elected—and re-elected—he clearly has the skills needed to win elections.

So we know he can get the job, but can he do the job? Let the evidence speak for itself: IRS targeting and 'missing' emails, Benghazi, Veterans Administration scandal, trading 5 Taliban leaders for 1 American deserter in violation of law and under false pretenses of poor health of the deserter, spying on the Associated Press, ATF 'Fast and Furious', Eric Holder refusal to turn over emails and contempt of Congress charges, the Healthcare.gov failed rollout, giving 500 million in government money to Solyndra—the company that donated 500 thousand to Mr. Obama's election, Holder's explanation of his refusal to prosecute Black Panthers for voter intimidation, promising but failing to close Gitmo, refusing to defend laws that Mr. Obama doesn't agree with-- in spite of his oath of office, changing the definitions of measurements to create false figures—such as counting people turned away at the border as 'deportations' when that wasn't counted in the past and using Executive 'Memorandum' in place of Executive Orders to claim that he doesn't use Executive Orders very frequently, granting Executive Amnesty to people in the country illegally—in spite of repeatedly claiming to lack the authority to do so, repeatedly lying to the American people about the ACA and telling then that they 'could keep their insurance' and that they 'could keep their doctors', the Secret Service prostitution scandal, the Secret Service failure to stop intruders into the White House, the political imprisonment of a man for making a film offensive to Muslims....gosh, you know, I can go on and on with this, but I think I have presented enough to make my point.

And the point is this: if Mr. Obama was the man with the 'right' skills, these things and these kinds of things just wouldn't have happened with such frequency. They have happened with such frequency that before a scandal has even left the news, another one emerged to supplant it, and then another one after that. And what has been Mr. Obama's response to such scandals? All too often it has been to claim ignorance, or to declare some future action and then just never follow through. Mr. Obama has a staff of nearly 2000 people to assist him in his job as President—admittedly a difficult job—yet he is constantly blindsided. Whether it was knowing about the IRS targeting, the VA scandal, or the formidability of ISIS, he claims to has been mis-informed. Sorry, but either he is lying, or he does not have the 'right' skills to justify his meteoric rise to power. His rise to power is a rise unearned.

If Mr. Obama does not have the right skills to justify his meteoric rise to power, then how did he achieve it, how did it happen? I assert that he did not achieve it, but it happened nonetheless. Which can only mean that someone else—likely a lot of someone else's—assisted him in his rise to power. Why would I say that, what is the evidence? I present 2 key things that happened after Mr. Obama got elected that expose the strings of the puppeteers and suggest that some things which happened before he got elected were not accidental but were intended to happen to make him become President. The first is the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize in October of 2009 to Mr. Obama. This award stunned everyone and no one has a satisfactory explanation for how Mr. Obama had earned it. The best anyone can say is that it was awarded as a downpayment for future actions that would foster peace world-wide. The second item is the US Senate's vote to 'cut funding for the closure of Guantanamo Bay' by a vote of 90-6. This is key, if the Senate can control the military with such surgical precision, then the whole role of Mr. Obama as Commander-in-Chief is called into question. The likely explanation is much more simple: after being elected, Mr. Obama was more fully informed of the complications to American foreign policy if Gitmo were to close, and he clearly changed his mind on the matter. But he had already made very public pronouncements to the contrary, so what could he do? Obviously, he asked the Senate to cover his ass, and they did. Does this indicate a shadowy control over the government? Sure it does. Whenever you have people claiming to be diametrically opposed to each other in public who then suddenly work together on a task and then go back to public bickering, you should ask yourself if this 'bickering' is a real difference of opinion or if is just puppet theater. In this case, and the case of the passage of the NDAA, it clearly shows that the two-party system we have if really just one-party, but I digress.

Here are another couple of things to indicate that Mr. Obama's rise to power wasn't just accidental. The first is the inexplicable failure for his Republican candidates who brutally pummeled and out-maneuvered each other, but then suddenly trip and stumble when facing Mr. Obama. Take John McCain, for example, he was thought to be out of the primary races very early, but then put his resources where they would help him the most and came back to beat everyone else. But then when he faced Mr. Obama, he became a complete idiot. He had a source of ready-made material to use against his opponent—all of the things that Clinton and Biden had said about Obama-- and he refused to use it. And then the was Mrs. Clinton, an established politician and national figure who had a special meeting with Mr. Obama and then just let everything fall apart for her instead of fighting as she had been doing the entire year before. And that doesn't even touch on the Main Stream Media's 'cloak of invisibility' that it threw on things in Mr. Obama's past such as the Rev. Wright comments and the Bill Ayers connections or of his father's hatred of colonialism or his mother's love of communism. And then, in 2012, history repeated itself, with Mr. Romney's super-PACs beating up all of his Republican rivals and then him treating Obama with kid gloves—except for his first debate with Obama. I think that first debate was Romney showing what he could do even though, like Mr. McCain, he then threw the election. These things, by themselves, would not be much, certainly not enough to point out some controlling influence to our elections. But, when taken together, all of these events than happen to benefit just one person, Mr. Obama, show that his rise to power was a rise engineered.

What all of this means is that Mr. Obama's meteoric rise to power was one that was unusual, unearned and engineered, and I think that it also means that Mr. Obama is headed for a fall. I think that Obama is headed for a fall, a disaster, that will be equally meteoric in proportion to his rise—and I think that is will be in this calendar year.

The first reason that I think Mr. Obama is headed toward a fall is one of balance. When considering his rise in comparison to recent history, it is almost always the case that a person rises and then falls—and it would not be dramatic to merely suggest that Mr. Obama will have his decline, but the nature of his rise suggests that a slow decline into obscurity is not really what is ahead. This is less of a evidence-based approach and more of a common-sense one. Isn't it always the case that the man who flies to high, the Icarus who flies to close to the sun, then falls back to earth? “The flame that burns twice as bright, burns half as long—and Roy, you have burned so very, very bright.” It is just something that 'seems to make sense' when you consider someone who has been catapulted into fame and power, they will inevitably fall back down, but when considering the details of Mr. Obama's rise to power, there are other considerations as well.

One of those 'other considerations' is that those who engineered Mr. Obama's rise to power have more people to manage than just Mr. Obama, and that taking just one person and giving him everything while requiring nothing will create disloyalty 'within the ranks'. Take someone like Mr. Biden, a loyal servant of establishment politics who—while not terribly bright—at least knows how to do what he is told (most of the time). He has been working within the political establishment for decades when along comes Mr. Obama. A recently elected junior-Senator, Mr. Obama is catapulted over Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton and becomes President, a position that Mr. Biden had hoped for—Mrs. Clinton too. And that is just the tip of the iceberg, what of all the other people who have been following the rules and 'paying their dues' as they worked their way up within the establishment? A person like Mr. Obama, just coming along and being given everything—even a Nobel Peace Prize—for doing nothing more than they had been doing will create dissension among the ranks. On the other hand, if Mr. Obama were to face an epic catastrophe, a fall as monumental as his rise, then things will be balanced. All of the people working within the establishment will see that being the 'golden boy' comes at a price and they will be more satisfied with their positions.

The other 'consideration' is Mr. Obama's hidden history—his school records and his travel records. I don't think these will show that he isn't a US 'natural-born' citizen, rather I think they will show that while he is a US citizen, he attended school, or accepted funding, or traveled while claiming that he wasn't a US citizen. I think they will show that he lies. But I don't know—nobody does. My point is that he can't keep these things secret forever and that after he has had his disaster (whatever it is) then it won't matter what these things say—he won't matter. Or he won't matter very much.

So why does this supposed 'fall' have to happen this year? Simple, because after this year, Mr. Obama will become less and less important until he reaches the point where any 'fall' could never be equal in magnitude to his rise. Right now, he is still on the 'plateau of his power'—as he has been for the last 6 years. But starting next year, he will be coming down off that plateau. The eyes of America and of the world will shift to who is coming next. By the end of next year, all eyes will be fixed on his successor, with just an occasional glance in his direction. For there to be any great disaster, any great fall, it would have to come this year.

So there it is, I think that Mr. Obama has had a meteoric rise to power that is unusual, unearned and engineered. I think that the great heights and honors he has been given will be balanced by a great fall and that this fall will serve to bolster loyalty among the ranks of the elites and used to further the goals of the people who engineered his rise in the first place, they—whoever 'they' are—own him. And I think this will all happen in the year 2015.

A footnote: I don't actually like making predictions—who does? Reality has a perverse way of turning from it's course just to prove me wrong. When I say that we can't keep getting snowstorm after snowstorm, we get blizzards until May 2^nd (literally!). When I say that we had a bad winter last year so this one will be better, we get the worst winter ever(!). When I say that we will have 2-3 bad winters in a row and get a snow blower to be ready for them, we get very little snow at all (so far). So when I come along and say that Mr. Obama is headed for a fall....and he will likely be just fine. You Obama supporters can thank me later.

2020 Addendum:

Looks like all the Obama supports can thank me. Guess everything turned out fine and he glided from the Presidency with ease. So I was wrong, but why was I wrong?

My assumptions had been that there was (and is) a controlling organization that keeps watch over their political monopoly (there is! check out the book 'You can't be President' by John R. MacArthur) in the US and seeks to reward those who have shown service and loyalty with helping them advance in politics. Clearly there are organizations that have control over politics.

BUT, do they have an interest in rewarding loyalty and service-- as I had assumed. Apparently not. And I'm not just saying that to bash Obama.As meteoric as Obama's rise was (and I still maintain that it was), his successor --Donald Trump-- had an even more meteoric rise. Trump never served in any political office, and yet became President. Could the establishment have stopped him? Of course they could have. The RNC can change the rules and could have found a way to keep Trump out (voters would have gotten over it, what else can they do?). But they didn't. If your assumptions are wrong, then you will get poor conclusions.

Clearly my assumptions were wrong. Obama's departure proved it. Trump's Presidency confirms it. So what does it mean? It means that we are in a new place where long service and loyalty to establishment organizations does not mean those people will be rewarded with preferential treatment. An odd place to be, certainly, but here we are.

for more essays and for short stories, check out MHHickey.com
for talk about books, swords, and nerd hobbies, check out Booksandswords.com